Skip to main content

About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
to space to stem-cell research to name a few. can science stay objective out of politics? alex is co-author of science left behind, feel good fallacies in the rise of the anti-scientific left. welcome. >> thank you for having me on. >> sure. you argue here that for all of the talk about republicans being the enemy of science, anti-scientific rhetoric is a by partisan project. tell me how you came to this opinion that democrats are not necessarily the party of science. >> well, on a whole host of issues, so as you know, on the right the conservatives are wrong on evolution and on climate change, and there's this it media narrative that somehow anti-science believes are unique to the right side of the political spectrum. what i found through reading a lot of science is basically that the left side also has some pet ideas not lining up with the scientific mainstream. for instance, opposition to genetic modification. the california democratic party endorsed this proportion to label food in direct opposition to the american medical association. the anti-vaccine movement started on the lef
the senate until the kink of junk science opened his month. with the senate in the balance, let's talk about favorite senate races and surely what's going on in missouri never ceases to amuse me. the crazy uncle has been let out of the back room and into the party. he keeps talking and he keeps staying alive. he's only 3 points behind. missourians are saying we don't like either people. who do we like least, best, bad, worse. it's problematic both ways, but the gop has refunded to todd akin to supporting him, newt gingrich has endorsed him, rick santor santorum, i believe you like him, too. >> i do. >> they both endorse him. it seems that the gop once running from todd akin has said winning the senate at all costs is valuable. >> some in the gop, some. >> it's interesting, you know. missouri there's a mirror image situation in massachusetts. missouri is a red state that doesn't really like the republican candidate personally. you look at massachusetts, and another key senate race. this is a blue state that really likes the republican person, scott brown, whose re-election is critical to taki
it in the last few days. the conventional wisdom among the political science crowd is you don't have much variance between where the national horse race stands and where the race stands in the battleground states. if it moves nationally, it moves the same direction in the swing states. we see in this race closer polls nationally where obama will only be ahead by two points or whatever it is, and then you look at ohio and virginia and you see four or five, six, seven point margins. is there any imbalance between the two, and do you have any explanation for it? >> we don't have very many state polls back yet. the initial wave of state polls showed romney doing pretty well in the battleground states. in the rasmussen polls over the last two days, obama is doing better. that's consistent with the trend i talked about earlier. the question is whether obama gets an outsized bounce in states like ohio, nevada and iowa where he was doing better than nationally. if you look at all of the national polls conducted since the first debate, what you see is about a three point gain for romney. if that h
stage? john gear is in the guest spot today. he chairs the political science department at vanderbilt university. how are you, sir? >> i'm fine. how are you? >> i'm good. i'm a person that believes that campaigns matter, that campaigning and governing are different jobs with different skill sets. can you talk about the impact of how campaigning is like governing and how campaigning is different than governing? >> there's certainly similari similariti similarities. when you're president of the united states, you need to do persuading. there are certain skill sets in common. one of the big differences when you campaign, you can be pretty vague and you can hedge. when you're governing, you have to make choices, and you've got to make decisions that have real policy implications. that's the big difference. >> can you name people who ran bad campaigns and were good presidents, and then people who ran good campaigns. >> i suspect the example of someone running a good campaign but not good as president might be lyndon johnson in '64. he ran a very powerful campaign and won 62%, 63% of the vo
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)